5 ms·

>> microagressing them > Somehow I'm reminded of the debate over corporal punishment in schools, where pedagogical effectiveness takes a back seat to more prim

>> microagressing them > Somehow I'm reminded of the debate over corporal punishment in schools, where pedagogical effectiveness takes a back seat to more primal ideas about punishment, conformity, and order. People used to be beaten for being left-handed, remember. Can you provide some context to justify comparing microagressions with beating people with sticks?

claudiawerner 7y ago
Though it doesn't entirely answer your question, several philosophers of speech have identified no metaphysical difference between speech and non-speech, and some find the justifications for a law guaranteeing freedom of speech to be ultimately unfounded[0]. The issue for them is not whether speech causes harm (it does) but whether the harms are sufficient to allow some kind of regulation on speech; there is no evidence showing that speech "invariably causes less harm [than non-speech]". Several have argued this to be the case in the context of hate speech or pornography - it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions - which, as the researchers have noted, may not always be conscious[2]. [0] https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Brison-Free-Speech-Skepticism-Nov.-11-2018-copy.pdf https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Bris... [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... [2] Sue, Derald Wing. Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
- gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
  > it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions Terrifying
- nradov 7y ago
  Your premise is flawed. Unless it's a direct incitement to violence, speech does not cause harm.
  - dagw 7y ago
    That is far too narrow a view. There are many ways a person can be harmed beyond just physical violence. Instead the question we have to tackle is how much harm are we OK with.
    - nradov 7y ago
      If you believe that then you have defined "harm" so broadly as to be utterly meaningless.
      - dagw 7y ago
        Again I disagree. Complete social ostracisation for example is every bit as harmful (and almost certainly worse) than a punch to the face. Being fired from your job and/or being denied employment or advancement are again also at least as bad as a punch to the face. I could go on. Limiting "harm" to mean being the victim of physical violence is so narrow as to be utterly meaningless.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Ah, this would be the species of academic debate where a carefully referenced argument can be downvoted and rebutted with a flat unsourced statement of position?
    - nradov 7y ago
      The argument ultimately boiled down to just one person's opinion, nothing more. Adding a bunch of academic references doesn't make the author's opinion any more valid than mine. If you search around you can find just as many opposing references. So what. This isn't like actual science where anything can be verified or disproven.
  - 7y ago
- davemp 7y ago
  From your 0th citation: "Please don’t cite or circulate it beyond the workshop."
pjc50 7y ago
Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale - and they are at a very different scale, hence the "micro". But the intent to hurt is common. We can see even in this thread people talking about the need to "toughen" up students. Some people who think that any form of physical hurt would be completely unacceptable still seem to think that emotional hurt is completely fictional and it's totally OK to inflict arbitrary amounts of it on people, then refuse to believe their own accounts of the hurt.
- stvswn 7y ago
  I don't think I'd argue that emotional pain isn't "real." I have felt negative emotions before, I know that negative emotions actually make me feel bad. I also don't think it's some kind of good thing to make people feel bad. Sometimes it's just a matter of good manners -- respect people, avoid offending them, etc. You are positing that when microaggressions occur there was intent, however, and this is obviously false. In fact, it is exactly the lack of intent that is the focus of most of the conversation -- unconscious bias being the main explanation for why the aggressor commited the micro-act that led to the aggrieved's injury. There is a strong analogy to physical pain here, yes -- we're talking about the arena of ideas where unpleasant conversations and thoughts are inevitable if one is going to become and educated person. In a physical arena, say athletics, a similar situation would be where a coach makes everyone practice until they feel micro-pain, like maybe fatigue in their muscles and shortness of breath, or bumps and bruises from normal contact.
- tomp 7y ago
  > Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale No, you're comparing physical aggression with verbal aggression. Sure, the latter might hurt, but I think many (most?) people would agree that it's not just a difference "of scale". > But the intent to hurt is common. No, "microaggressions" are often accused even when there's no intent to hurt. E.g. asking a foreign-looking student "Where are you from?" - which is most often likely asked with genuine curiosity, and no ill intent whatsoever - even if you don't assume the person is a foreigner!
  - 7y ago

claudiawerner 7y ago

Though it doesn't entirely answer your question, several philosophers of speech have identified no metaphysical difference between speech and non-speech, and some find the justifications for a law guaranteeing freedom of speech to be ultimately unfounded[0]. The issue for them is not whether speech causes harm (it does) but whether the harms are sufficient to allow some kind of regulation on speech; there is no evidence showing that speech "invariably causes less harm [than non-speech]". Several have argued this to be the case in the context of hate speech or pornography - it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions - which, as the researchers have noted, may not always be conscious[2]. [0] https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Brison-Free-Speech-Skepticism-Nov.-11-2018-copy.pdf https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Bris... [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... [2] Sue, Derald Wing. Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
> it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions Terrifying
nradov 7y ago
Your premise is flawed. Unless it's a direct incitement to violence, speech does not cause harm.
- dagw 7y ago
  That is far too narrow a view. There are many ways a person can be harmed beyond just physical violence. Instead the question we have to tackle is how much harm are we OK with.
  - nradov 7y ago
    If you believe that then you have defined "harm" so broadly as to be utterly meaningless.
    - dagw 7y ago
      Again I disagree. Complete social ostracisation for example is every bit as harmful (and almost certainly worse) than a punch to the face. Being fired from your job and/or being denied employment or advancement are again also at least as bad as a punch to the face. I could go on. Limiting "harm" to mean being the victim of physical violence is so narrow as to be utterly meaningless.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Ah, this would be the species of academic debate where a carefully referenced argument can be downvoted and rebutted with a flat unsourced statement of position?
  - nradov 7y ago
    The argument ultimately boiled down to just one person's opinion, nothing more. Adding a bunch of academic references doesn't make the author's opinion any more valid than mine. If you search around you can find just as many opposing references. So what. This isn't like actual science where anything can be verified or disproven.
- 7y ago
davemp 7y ago
From your 0th citation: "Please don’t cite or circulate it beyond the workshop."

pjc50 7y ago

Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale - and they are at a very different scale, hence the "micro". But the intent to hurt is common. We can see even in this thread people talking about the need to "toughen" up students. Some people who think that any form of physical hurt would be completely unacceptable still seem to think that emotional hurt is completely fictional and it's totally OK to inflict arbitrary amounts of it on people, then refuse to believe their own accounts of the hurt.

stvswn 7y ago
I don't think I'd argue that emotional pain isn't "real." I have felt negative emotions before, I know that negative emotions actually make me feel bad. I also don't think it's some kind of good thing to make people feel bad. Sometimes it's just a matter of good manners -- respect people, avoid offending them, etc. You are positing that when microaggressions occur there was intent, however, and this is obviously false. In fact, it is exactly the lack of intent that is the focus of most of the conversation -- unconscious bias being the main explanation for why the aggressor commited the micro-act that led to the aggrieved's injury. There is a strong analogy to physical pain here, yes -- we're talking about the arena of ideas where unpleasant conversations and thoughts are inevitable if one is going to become and educated person. In a physical arena, say athletics, a similar situation would be where a coach makes everyone practice until they feel micro-pain, like maybe fatigue in their muscles and shortness of breath, or bumps and bruises from normal contact.
tomp 7y ago
> Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale No, you're comparing physical aggression with verbal aggression. Sure, the latter might hurt, but I think many (most?) people would agree that it's not just a difference "of scale". > But the intent to hurt is common. No, "microaggressions" are often accused even when there's no intent to hurt. E.g. asking a foreign-looking student "Where are you from?" - which is most often likely asked with genuine curiosity, and no ill intent whatsoever - even if you don't assume the person is a foreigner!
- 7y ago